Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	sin_n	sin_v	13,883	5	9.2456	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47121	The anti-Christs and Sadduces detected among a sort of Quakers, or, Caleb Pusie of Pensilvania and John Pennington, with his brethren of the second days meeting at London called Quakers, proved antichrists and Sadduces out of a said book lately published by them called A modest account of the principal differences in point of doctrine betwixt George Keith and those of the people called Quakers in Pensilvania &c. : being an answer to the said book ... : with some few remarks on John Pennington's late book entitled The people called Quakers cleared &c. and Geo. Whitehead his postscript ...: and a postscript ... / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing K138; ESTC R179313	54,978	49

his time in the City of Leichfield as he declareth in his Journal and how he went in Blood a great way and was commanded to pull off his Shoes c. This and some other like passages has occasioned some to think G. F. favoured the Revolutions but I do not say he did And whether the Disciples did not hold that Doctrine that said Master who hath sinned this Man or his Servants that he was born blind and many other places of Scripture there are on which he might as much and much more query concerning the Revolutions as any expressions he hath mentioned of mine as well as he might query concerning the Revolutions all Friends generally who hold That God hath given to every one a day of Visitation wherein he may be saved and that a Time of God's long suffering is extended to every one wherein he may repent and be Converted seeing many Dye in the Morning as it were of their Age without all signs of Conversion and have had but little Time given them between their Birth and Death wherein to Repent And as to his Question If an honest Indian or Poor infant dye without that outward Knowledg c. He quite misseth the matter I never affirmed the absolute necessity of an outward Knowledg universally to Salvation besides that properly all knowledg is inward and not outward the subject of it being the mind and understanding that is inward And seeing it is certain that there are honest men both among Indians and them called Christians that are not born again I return his own Query upon him to Answer what becomes of them when they dye seeing without being born again there is no entring into the Kingdom of God and what becomes of many called Quakers and others that before they dyed had no signs that they were arrived at that high state of a sinless perfection for tho Friends have earnestly contended for the Doctrin of Perfection as attainable by the Grace of God in this Life yet they have generally acknowledged that many in whom the work of Sanctification is begun have not as yet arrived to that state but have many sinful imperfections remaining in them and the Flesh lusting against the Spirit now let him tell me or any for him what becomes of such when they Dye and I may give him the like Answer or some better what becomes of honest Indians when they Dye if he or they say they who are in measure Sanctified but not Perfected in Sanctification before they Dye are made perfect in Holiness at the instant of Death tho this Answer Friends have blamed when given by those against whom they have contended yet if they think fit to allow of it as current now as it will in great part end the Dispute about Perfection and Answer the great Objection about the Popish Purgatory so it is as valid to Answer that Question What becomes of honest Gentiles that before they Died had no Knowledg nor Faith of Christ Crucified to wit that it is given them at the instant of Death by the internal Operation and illumination of the Holy Spirit But if any say this Answer is more alledged than Proved I reply it hath the same probability in the one case as in the other P. 30. To prove my inconsistency and contrariety with my self in the Doctrine of the Resurrection with a most blasphemous presumption he finds fault with Scripture Doctrine it self and like a scoffing Sadducy or rather Atheist goeth to fix a contradiction on the Scripture it self for thus he brings me in contradicting my self that which riseth is the mortal that puts on immortality and the corruptible which puts on incorruption citing my Book called A Testimony against that absurd Opinion p. 3. But in another place p. 10. he citeth me saying The Flesh that is mortal and corruptible is not that Flesh that shall be raised up immortal and incorruptible And citing my Book called Truth Advanced he brings me saying of that which riseth That it is a pure noble part that consumeth not nor corrupteth And then he querieth If that which riseth be the corruptible p. 31. how is it that that which riseth is incorruptible and corrupteth not again Now Reader I desire thee to notice how he quarrels not so much with me as with the Scriptures to prove a contradiction in them for my saying That which riseth is the Mortal that puts on Immortality and the Corruptible that puts on Incorruption this is plain Scripture 1 Cor. 15. 53. For this Corruptible must put on Incorruption and this Mortal must put on Immortality And for the next Citation which he makes a contradiction to the former it is also most plain and evident in the Scripture The Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible is not that Flesh that shall be raised up Immortal and Incorruptible for the Scripture saith Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. And surely that is the Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible And p. 37. That which thou sowest thou sowest not that Body that shall be And v. 42. It is sown in Corruption it is raised in Incorruption c. And to his question which implyeth a negation and opposition to plain Scripture I answer That which riseth is incorruptible and corrupteth not again because it is made incorruptible and immortal by the mighty Power of God and to question the immortality and incorruptibility of the Bodies of the Saints after they are raised from the Dead is to suppose that they shall dye again and has this necessary consequence that they shall sin again for the wages of sin is Death But this contradicts the Testimony of Christ and all his Holy Prophets and Apostles and is a plain Introduction to Epicurism and Atheism And that I said in my Book Truth Advanced which he findeth fault with as being a contradiction that that which riseth is a pure noble part that consumeth not nor corrupteth This I say still and is no contradiction for in my Book in that very place cited by him p. 113. I bring a similitude of a grain of Corn which very Similitude the Scripture bringeth to demonstrate the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 37. Now all but fools and idiots know that as there is a Grain of Corn that corrupteth and turneth to Earth or Dust so there is another part in it that is more Noble that corrupteth not but by the corruption and dissolution of the other part is as it were set out of Prison and gets a new Life and Multiplication and as true Philosophy and right Reason and Ocular Experience teacheth that the generation of one thing followeth the corruption of another yet there is something in the new generated thing that was in the old corrupted thing so every Husbandman that has common sense knoweth that his Seed which he soweth doth not all perish or rot in the ground but a part remaineth in every Grain that multiplieth except in some extraordinary

Christ is said by Paul to have been kept secret since the world began but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the Prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all Nations for the obedience of faith Rom. 16. 25 26. Now what is made manifest but expres And what is kept secret but implicit So that this very distinction which my ignorant Adversaries blame in me as new and odd is the very distinction of Paul in equivalent terms And seeing they will not allow that distinction as applied to the Knowledge of Christ without us of express and implicit it is plain they hold that not any Knowledge not the least grain of the knowledge of Christ without men is universally necessary to Salvation neither express nor implicit which how Antichristian and Unscriptural it is I leave to all true Christians to judge But why will they not allow it as well with respect to the knowledge of Christ without us as of Christ within us Will they say that Men may be saved without all knowledge of Christ within either express or implicit If yea then we shall see what ignorant Persons they allow shall be saved and what a prodigious Ignorance they establish If nay then they must answer me with the same distinction in the same terms or in terms equilvalent and if they use that or any other the like distinction it shall be found new enough to them at least as new or rather much more new as that I have used in this case nor needs G. Whitehead blame me for using new Distinctions seeing both himself and William Penn have used them in several Cases to serve a turn a phrase they apply to me pag. 19. as in excusing Geo. Fox his saying Christ is not distinct from the Saints the Soul is a part of God And when they excuse Is Pennington's saying ' Can outward Blood cleanse And George Whitehead his excusing his former Sayings in divers of his old Books ' that Christ is not in all Men. He comes off with this distinction of late saying ' He is not in all Men unitedly or by union Which distinction I used not only in my Book of Universal Grace which was written in the Year 1669. though not printed till the Year 1671. but also in my Answer to the Thirty Queries sent by the Bishop of Aberden expresly mentioned in the Preface to Robert Barclay's Answer to VVilliam Mitchel in his Preface to it called Truth cleared of Calumnies The which Answer of mine to the said Thirty Queries was given in the Year 1666. before R. B. printed any thing or before he was a Quaker And I the rather mention this my Answer to these Thirty Queries because in these chief things which my Adversaries charge me to be changed in my Faith is the same now as it is there declared as well as in my other Printed Books which Answer I have in Manuscript writ 30 Years ago Copies of which are in several Hands and which I shall be ready to show to any sober Enquirers And what pittiful unsound and odd as well as new Distinctions hath G. Whitehead used to excuse G. Fox his saying Your Gospel Matthew Mark Luke and John are Dust and the Serpents Meat He saying It was to be meant of the Ink and Paper which would turn to Dust. But who did ever call the Ink and Paper the Gospel or who did ever think that the Serpent which is the Devil doth eat Ink and Paper Oh for shame let these Men cease to blame me for new Distinctions when they have made so many False and Nonsensical new Distinctions more Foolish than ever were heard of And his excusing Solomon Eccles Blasphemy in saying The Blood that came out of Christ's Side was no more than the Blood of another Saint Behold his most Unlearned and Foolish Distinction inconsistent with and contradictory to that known great Principle of the People called Quakers That Christ dyed for all Men and shed his Blood for all His meaning was said G. Whitehead as to Papists and you viz. Baptists whose Minds are Carnol But another idle impertinent Cavil they make against the distinction of express Knowledge of Christ's Death c. and implicit is ' That I use that Word express as a word of Course and of no ' Force as when I said That many of Adam's Posterity suffer disadvantage by his ' Disobedience who never knew it expresly But that ever any perished by Adam's Sin who never knew it either expresly or implicitly as they alledge seeing they bring no proof of it I reject as false and fictitious It is evident from the Heathen Philosophers Writings and particularly from Plato that they knew at least implicitiy the Fall of Man and the degeneration of Mankind in general for Plato not only mentions the Fall of Man but Tò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an imbred Evil in Men that is born with them And how can any Impartial Reader that reads my Books when I so oft caution restrict and limit the Words on that subject with the term Express and at other times with the Words clear Distinct Knowledge and at other times with the Words Historical Outward Knowledge all which and the like Words R. Barelay hath used in several Places of his Apology after my Method and divers Years after I used that Method of Expression and I well know we were of One Mind in that thing and I published his Latin Theses in Holland first of all and carried them over with me out of Scotland at his desire whereof I can bring sufficient Witness and we used to Discourse together frequently on that Subject and both of us on purpose used these Cautions and Restricted Words as express clear distinct historical outward and in the outward viz. in the outward History or Letter to signifie that we did not intend that any were saved with Eternal Salvation without all Knowledge or Faith of Christ without though without the express they might and still may where it is not revealed And they are as Nonsensical and Ignorant in seeking to marr my Distinction by falsly alledging I have marred it by their dictator-like saying There is no Medium between knowing very darkly in Vails and Figures implicitly in a very obscure Degree and not knowing at all pag. 15. But to confute their Ignorance let any Man of common Sense answer me Is there no Medium between knowing very Darkly and not knowing at all Is the Particle or little Word very Superlative in the highest Degree or is it not rather Comparative Is there no medium betwixt a Mans being very ignorant and knowing nothing at all If there be none then by George Whitehead's Logick who hath either writ this Book that I answer or approved it because he is very Ignorant as I have sufficiently proved he knoweth nothing at all But surely the most ignorant may and do know some things therefore G. W. is as ignorant in true